Climategate Investigators Are Global Warming Buddies!

A Climategate Over Climategate?

With the fraudulent background to climate claims, we should not have expected anything else - we now find the chosen Climategate Inquiry team of five men consisted of at least two pro-climate change scientists! The scandals just keep on coming – the climate garbage is building up on either side of the information highway, and the rats are still spreading their disease.

Boulton the Fifth-Columnist

We should have known the climate inquiry would be slanted. One of the team, Prof Geofrey Boulton, is called upon to resign because he is not impartial. Another panel member has already quit. Boulton, it has been discovered, believes climate change is caused by human activity, making him very unsuitable to be part of an inquiry team. (The Scotsman, 13th Feb 2010).

As the Editorial (13th Feb) of The Scotsman newspaper reminds us, members of the Inquiry had to “have no prejudicial interest” or “predetermined view” on climate change. Boulton and the other members knew this, and yet they remained quiet, pretending to be impartial. This is just what we have come to expect from the sneaky, dark side of pseudo-science.

Even better, Boulton worked for 18 years at East Anglia University, the same university of which the Climate Research Unit is a part! For reasons that are not acceptable, the Inquiry is to be held in private – easy to then hide facts and truth and disseminate lies, once again. As The Scotsman said “Sir Muir (Russell) may well have prejudiced the outcome before the inquiry has even started.” I think we can strike-out the words “may well have”… it began as a lie and would have exonerated Jones and pals by sleight-of-hand.

As Dr Benny Peiser and David Whitehouse said “The Russell panel is in need of complete overhaul before it can be taken seriously.” (CCNet-News, 12th Feb). We can only be thankful that the full texts of emails were issued before self-interested scientists tried to remove them from view.

Andrew Montford (13th Feb) said that a “major question mark” is now over the whole of the Russell Review as about half of the five-man panel have been shown “to be wildly unsuitable”. He added: “many will conclude that Muir Russell has set out to produce a predetermined result, not to reach the truth. Maybe they need to start again.” Too darn tootin’! It was another attempt to commit fraud and to mislead. The government and Jones et al have too much to lose in all this. They will try to influence any panel along their own lines. Muir need not ‘start again’ – just get rid of him and find men who will genuinely be impartial.

We can see that the people who set up the inquiry team are just as competent and truthful as the IPCC – neither checks the facts or the truth, and neither care anyway.

Jones… Trying to Wriggle Again

In an attempt to wriggle out of his part in the worldwide science scandal, Phil Jones now admits the “debate has not been settled” and that there were two periods of warming in the Medieval period. (He fails to say they were much, much warmer). (BBC News, 12th Feb). That’s a start, but still not good enough, because he still says warming (the warming that has not occurred for the past 12 years and was extremely minor anyway) is predominantly man-made. He can stick to that only because no-one can ever prove it!

Like Boulton, Jones said the “argument regarding climate change is over”. The other resigned scientist, Dr Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature magazine (another pro-warming publication) was so ‘unbiased’ he recently gave an interview to Chinese radio saying that he defended the CRU scientists. I find it incredible that Muir blatantly told reporters that the team were unbiased! I think Muir and his panellists were just arrogant pro-warmists who believe they can still get away with their lies. Now it is time to discredit and get rid of them all.

Jones told the BBC he thought some of his weather data was ‘not well enough organised’. That might wash with ordinary TV viewers, but not with others. He was a professor for goodness sake! His Unit advised governments and was one of the top three sources used by the IPCC! He was not a messy filing clerk, but a highly-trained and expert scientist!!

However, his language was tempered slightly when he said climate warming was “most likely” caused by humans. That is a big climb-down from the more pedantic ‘is caused by humans’. He probably sees his demise coming fast and now is trying to change his tune, with subtle shades of difference. However, his note, that the Medieval warming period “had experienced similar warming” is rather out of sync with reality – it was very much warmer for a long time. The warming we had in the 1900s was just a tiny blip by comparison, hardly registered on the tables, and nothing to get alarmed over.

Jones also ‘admitted’ his paperwork was not as it should be. This is another gross distortion of the facts. A man of his status, running a world-known unit, would be on top of his game. It is what credentials and credibility rely on! To blame things on bad paperwork is hilariously foolish.

Jones also admitted that scientists who claim warming exists, must do more to show why they say so, and must be more transparent. He is only saying that after he has been found out, trying to be more PR friendly.

One question… he says January was the warmest since 1979. He is telling that to a world frozen solid. Britain has had snow and ice, often well below zero, for the past two months. If that’s warmest, could he please tell me why my gas and electricity bills show the exact opposite?

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban. -- Follow these instructions on registering:

Canada Free Press

Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2018 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2018 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement